what were the central conflicts from these three separate views of the law? >> well, on the adoptive parents' side-- and they are supported by the guardian ad litem in this case-- they argue that even if the father -- even if the father is a parent under the law he has no legal rights. he had no relationship with this child. that the indian child welfare act presumes an existing indian family. it's all geared to preserving an indian family and there was no family here. on the other side, the father and the united states argue that the father does fit the definition of parent and the south carolina supreme court as well as the state family court applied the federal law accurately in refusing to terminate his parental rights. they found that he would provide a loving home and family for the child and met the other requirements of the law. >> suarez: the obama administration and many indian tribes came in on the side of the biological father. we'll find out how it all turns out later in the term. marcia coyle, thanks a lot. >> my pleasure, ray. >> brown: "it is